You're totally wrong about them 'being dragged kicking and screaming to do anything.' They've always had privacy controls. The issue was how easy it was to use them. The problem is how fine-grained control do you want to give people? There are a lot of dimensions to the issue. FB would like people to keep things relatively open and not succumb to paranoia, because if things are too locked down no one can find each other, no one can see each others posts. Its a delicate balance. FB erred on the side of giving people too much control. You could set everything, and scope it down in some very sophisticated ways. Privacy advocates complained that it was too confusing. Maybe so. I appreciated the flexibility.

FaceBook makes it obscure to purposely stop people from wanting to set it. Everyone knows this by now.

Try working with Apple as a strategic partner we are lucky to even get a reply that is just, "Sorry, no answer"...

So?

It's been that way for decades. If you thought it would change because you became a strategic partner, then you need to rethink your own agenda.

If I had a buck for every time an evangelist said, "Hey, we're making a right turn in six months", just before they made a full left turn instead two weeks later? Well, let's just say I wouldn't be wondering how my portfolio was doing.

Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.

It's been that way for decades. If you thought it would change because you became a strategic partner, then you need to rethink your own agenda.

If I had a buck for every time an evangelist said, "Hey, we're making a right turn in six months", just before they made a full left turn instead two weeks later? Well, let's just say I wouldn't be wondering how my portfolio was doing.

So is it ok when Apple acts the way they do towards other companies, but not ok when Facebook does it?

Originally Posted by Wurm5150
Right coz Facebook isn't sleazy, who's CEO refers to his company's users as dumb f#%ks and suckers.. Coz a company with complete disregard for privacy and who's CEO doesn't believe in privacy is not sleazy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Newtron

Just for the record, I said nothing one way or the other about Facebook.

It's just amazing the ease with which you prevaricate. For the record, your comment implied that Apple was the in the wrong in their dispute with Facebook. Wurm's counter comparison was completely in order.

You display this behavior over and over in your posts. Can't you just own your point of view if you are going to continue plaguing this site with your trollery?

it's a public API, anyone can use it without needing negotiations. Besides they were only using it to help you find friends. I'm sure Apple had hoped to leverage the social network much further than that. It was actually pretty sleazy for Facebook to block it.

it's a public API, anyone can use it without needing negotiations. Besides they were only using it to help you find friends. I'm sure Apple had hoped to leverage the social network much further than that. It was actually pretty sleazy for Facebook to block it.

Not quite. Supposedly FB has rules in effect that if your using the API will exceed a certain number of calls per day, then you need special permission to use it.

Jimmy Joe Bob's personal site is not going to be a drain on FB resources, Google, Apple, MS, Amazon using the API would, hence the rules.

You do not know what you are talking about. Facebook has open APIs for developers to use. Anybody can add a connect to Facebook button without getting permission directly from Facebook. The exception is when a developer will dramatically increase the demand on Facebook's servers. Since that exception is a bit of a gray area, Apple wouldn't know what Facebook would do until after it launched.

Facebook makes money off increased traffic. Seems like it would be thrilled. Likely a dumb move by Facebook.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Newtron

That was a pretty sleazy move by Apple. No deal, nothing on the table, and Apple integrates them anyways.

No wonder the magazine and newspaper industries are saying "Thanks, but no thanks". Apple seems to be accumulating enemies a WHOLE lot faster than it is enticing partners.

Ping is a pile of junk. Very buggy, wrecked my iTunes account so i can't buy music (whatever Apple), the navigation buttons are poorly place, not many artists are available on there, and it is built-into iTunes. Ping should be a web page (e.g. www.Apple.com/Ping). It is retarded that I have to go through the bloated iTunes software to get to this social network. I was hopeful to use it but see no value in it for the above mentioned reasons. iTunes 10 is not a major update - its a buggy alpha-of-a-release product. I'm tired of Apple using its base as beta testers for something their should be a golden release.

Like I said "(hence eyeballs, hence ad revenue)"
My point is, the reason I go on Facebook is to connect with my friends who live all over the place, and catch up on what they're doing. Ping doesn't let you do that at all. You can't customize your homepage. You can't post anything not related to the iTunes store. Its a poor social network and hardly even qualifies as such. It would have been sort of cool as an FB-add-on, but as a stand-alone thing it's not, at least thus far.

If anyone's interested in music-related social networking, try the Last.FM module for FB. It even integrates into iTunes and will publish what you're listening to, regardless of whether it is available in the iTunes store. Now, that's how it should be done. http://www.last.fm/

I guess Apple was hoping the FB-connect thing would fly. It seemed like there was brinkmanship going on right up to the release. Its weird seeing Apple pull a "Palm-Pre" sort of maneuver.

It's really pretty simple. Ping, as was explained by Jobs, is a music related social networking service. It's not designed to compete with Facebook, hence the link to it.

And as I brought up twice here, though I guess you didn't read it, Apple did nothing wrong. According to Facebook's rules, a service like Apple's doesn't have to do anything as long as daily hits to the Facebook doesn't exceed 100 million per day. With a couple of million members in the beginning, it's very unlikely that Ping would give more than a few million hits a day to Facebook, if that. It's Facebook that's in the wrong here.

Social networking is not realty my cup of tea since I don't belong to any of the networks but it would seem to me, with the lack of any real information out there and everything being total speculation, that this could just be two companies competing to try to get the best deal for their individual companies.

That was a pretty sleazy move by Apple. No deal, nothing on the table, and Apple integrates them anyways.

No wonder the magazine and newspaper industries are saying "Thanks, but no thanks". Apple seems to be accumulating enemies a WHOLE lot faster than it is enticing partners.

apparently you were present at those negotiations. care to share with the group the specifics of said negotiations so we can actually present informed comments? or are you just trolling?
(i suspect the latter.)

You're totally wrong about them 'being dragged kicking and screaming to do anything.' They've always had privacy controls. The issue was how easy it was to use them. The problem is how fine-grained control do you want to give people? There are a lot of dimensions to the issue. FB would like people to keep things relatively open and not succumb to paranoia, because if things are too locked down no one can find each other, no one can see each others posts. Its a delicate balance. FB erred on the side of giving people too much control. You could set everything, and scope it down in some very sophisticated ways. Privacy advocates complained that it was too confusing. Maybe so. I appreciated the flexibility.

Wow, Facebook's own super-apologist. And they're not even paying you. They did have to be dragged kicking and screaming each and every time when they UNILATERALLY open up people's privacy settings.

They pretend that it's about granularity of controls. But that's not what people are complaining about. The complaint is about something that you set to be private that Facebook would then unilaterally expose.

Watch Suckerman's interview at All Things D, and see him slip and slither and slime his way around very straightforward questions about their privacy policies.

This is a company that bases its actions not on what is right or wrong but on what it can and cannot get away with. An ethically rudderless organization that I would never, ever trust with my personal information.

I was sharing my views from the perspective of a shareholder. As a shareholder, I would like to see Apple seize this opportunity to preserve their business and allow them to be able to continue making amazing products. As a fan, you are right, I really don't care much for iAds except maybe for the fact that I am a lesser fan of Google/Admob.

Why should we care about ads in general? Because Adsense has allowed Google to become a dominant force in a relatively short amount of time. Today, Google is the 800 pound gorilla that is out to take over the world. It's a money printing machine and it's still a relatively young business. Aside from their search engine which is a well guarded secret despite all their talk about not being evil and being open, what else have they produce themselves? They bought a bunch of companies and there is nothing wrong with that. The world of technology is converging and whether Apple likes it or not, old allies like Google are out to take them on. So Apple has to defend its turf and as someone once said: the best way to preserve your borders is to expand them.

I'm on it now and it definitely sucks in many ways, but it has great potential. Apples iTunes database is full of high end consumers. I wouldn't be surprised if five years from now FaceBook is like MySpace (for low class users), and Ping is the more desirable upscale social network.

Ping will not eat Facebook's lunch unless they catch up in terms of:
1- adoption
2- features
They can improve on the 1st by shipping it on every laptop, desktop, phone, ipod they sell. Remember Windows and IE? Look how fast they killed of Netscape.

They can offer better features by integrating all the services together. Sign in every service or device with the same account. Imagine this scenario: you log into your mac, itunes, me.com, iPhone with the same username and that account is integrated to your FB/flickr/tweeter account. That's single sign on. Make it open, flexible, customizable, easy, safe and people will adopt it.

The real potential of Ping lies in the potential for Apple to monetize on the data since it merges the social network data of FB with the purchasing data of the world's largest music/app distributor (soon to be media?). That's data worth mining and something that advertisers are willing to pay top dollars for.

Facebook has only been around for six years, and it could potentially all blow up tomorrow. Companies that appear instantly may disappear just as fast, and the barrier to entry for competitors is not that huge. Anyone remember MySpace?

Facebook has only been around for six years, and it could potentially all blow up tomorrow. Companies that appear instantly may disappear just as fast, and the barrier to entry for competitors is not that huge. Anyone remember MySpace?

So is it ok when Apple acts the way they do towards other companies, but not ok when Facebook does it?

I'm sitting here scratching my head over how the heck you could possible read that into my post. I was responding to an OP that appeared to be complaining about how Apple dealt with strategic partners. My comment had a lot to do with how Apple responds, and nothing to do with Facebook or how they respond.

Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.

It's been that way for decades. If you thought it would change because you became a strategic partner, then you need to rethink your own agenda.

If I had a buck for every time an evangelist said, "Hey, we're making a right turn in six months", just before they made a full left turn instead two weeks later? Well, let's just say I wouldn't be wondering how my portfolio was doing.

???

Maybe they should change if they want to change things themselves so much.

It is kind of hard to support their products in an enterprise when they will not provide any replies. So far replies have been like, "gee we don't know". What? You created this...

My agenda is to provide the best solutions possible to internal customers and retail while meeting company policies. Nothing odd going on there in that agenda. I know though unless I am just praising Apple this kind of post just get trashed.

Broadcast companies are not signing up.
Publishers are not signing up.
Music industry is not giving anything more.
Developers are signing up to Android.

Android will be (by forecast today) 4 times the size of iOS.

Companies go with the money.

I did. I have a Droid X phone now and couldn't be happier.

I still have Apple products because they have life left in them.
I'll be moving them to e-bay or friends and family within the year.

Apple still can't get WiFi or Bluetooth right (at least for Windows XP, Vista or 7) users.

I lost hope and bailed on them and REALLY, REALLY LOVE my new Phone.
My Droid X is getting Froyo 2.2 tomorrow. I should even be happier.

The iPhone 4 is extremely popular, so much so that Apple can't keep up with demand. Same thing of the iPad. Computer sales are again up much more than the rest of the industry. iTunes sells vastly more than all other music services, including subscriptions.iPods are also, along with that far more popular than any other players.

Apple sells a large percentage of downloaded movies and Tv shows.

Sure, some companies are afraid to hop on the Apple bandwagon, but they aren't doing all that well with what they are doing.

Apple does have most movie companies selling movies through iTunes, and has for years, same thing is true for Tv companies.

Yes, they hate the idea of selling or renting those properties at prices that consumers really want. but some are doing it, and likely the rest will follow.

Google is trying todo a Tv service, but you can read the industry articles that say they aren't having any more success than Apple, even less.

Most major book publishers sell books through the Apple bookstore, but the one major holdout will be very surprised when Amazon finally decides to stop losing money on them, and drops the price they are paying them. They're living in a dream world.

Apple still has a lot more developers for iOs than Android has, and it's not likely that will change much.

As for those stupid predictions, come back in a couple of years. It's not likely they will work out.

I have no idea what you're talking about when you mention WiFi and Bluetooth problems. They have no more than any others

I'm happy for you and your Droid X, may you have a lovely two years together.

Broadcast companies are not signing up.
Publishers are not signing up.
Music industry is not giving anything more.
Developers are signing up to Android.

Android will be (by forecast today) 4 times the size of iOS.
Companies go with the money.
I did. I have a Droid X phone now and couldn't be happier.
I still have Apple products because they have life left in them.
I'll be moving them to e-bay or friends and family within the year.
Apple still can't get WiFi or Bluetooth right (at least for Windows XP, Vista or 7) users.
I lost hope and bailed on them and REALLY, REALLY LOVE my new Phone.
My Droid X is getting Froyo 2.2 tomorrow. I should even be happier.

Would you have anything to back up *your* statements?

There are many broadcast companies and movie companies offering rentals and movies, increasingly in HD, on iTunes, plain as day to see. Zinio and many other magazine apps are on the App Store. There are high levels of publishers on iBookstore and Kindle app for iOS. The music available on iTunes store is one of, if not, the, widest available digitally. Developers continue to create quality apps for iOS, as seen on the App Store.

Android can be bigger than iOS, does that make iOS worthless?

It's great that you love your new phone, it is hoped that demand for iPhone 4 and iPad reduces somewhat so that the maximum that they are able to make, for one company, about 10 million iOS devices a month (that will be over 100 million a year), can be distributed globally where iPhone 4 and iPad has barely launched.

That was a pretty sleazy move by Apple. No deal, nothing on the table, and Apple integrates them anyways.

No wonder the magazine and newspaper industries are saying "Thanks, but no thanks". Apple seems to be accumulating enemies a WHOLE lot faster than it is enticing partners.

This seems to be an incendiary, unsubstantial post. It is an accusation that Apple is sleazy while Facebook is without wrongdoing. The reference to the magazine and newspaper industries appears to be unrelated to Apple developing a social network for iTunes.

You're totally wrong about them 'being dragged kicking and screaming to do anything.' They've always had privacy controls. The issue was how easy it was to use them. The problem is how fine-grained control do you want to give people? There are a lot of dimensions to the issue. FB would like people to keep things relatively open and not succumb to paranoia, because if things are too locked down no one can find each other, no one can see each others posts. Its a delicate balance. FB erred on the side of giving people too much control. You could set everything, and scope it down in some very sophisticated ways. Privacy advocates complained that it was too confusing. Maybe so. I appreciated the flexibility.

And yes, FB DOES connect me with people. Its a great site. They're NOT trying to sell me things. They generate ad revenue the same way Google does, as I alluded to in my original post.

Ping is more like Amazon's reviewer community with a little connectivity thrown in. Its completely related to commerce. Its like "Walmart Buddies" or something. That's not a social network.

This is true, but since your message is slightly negative towards Apple, expect to be crucified and called a troll here. Because remember, you aren't allowed to criticize Apple at all here.

This seems to be an incendiary, unsubstantial post. It is an accusation that Apple is sleazy while Facebook is without wrongdoing. The reference to the magazine and newspaper industries appears to be unrelated to Apple developing a social network for iTunes.

Here's a groundbreaking thought: Every large corporation, whether it's Google, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook or Wal-Mart can be sleazy at times. Do you honestly believe any of these large corporations personally care about you or your needs? Of course they don't, they just want your business and your money.

This is true, but since your message is slightly negative towards Apple, expect to be crucified and called a troll here. Because remember, you aren't allowed to criticize Apple at all here.

There is a difference between disagreeing with Apple vs certain posters who excessively make repeated negative comments just for the sake of it, and just to get a kick out of it, without actually discussing the merits of Apple or non-Apple perspectives.

For example, the benchmark would be, would we just go to an Android site and reply constantly, irrelevantly, to all their news threads with things like, "Clearly Android will never catch up to Apple" or "Google is the real sleazebag here", "Mind you, I've got an Android phone but can't wait to ditch it for an iPhone, I'm sick of being locked into the Android ecosystem".

This seems to be an incendiary, unsubstantial post. It is an accusation that Apple is sleazy while Facebook is without wrongdoing. The reference to the magazine and newspaper industries appears to be unrelated to Apple developing a social network for iTunes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quillz

Here's a groundbreaking thought: Every large corporation, whether it's Google, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook or Wal-Mart can be sleazy at times. Do you honestly believe any of these large corporations personally care about you or your needs? Of course they don't, they just want your business and your money.

Fair enough. My response was to the poster that said Apple is sleazy and violated Facebook, the poster implying that Facebook is totally innocent.

There is a difference between disagreeing with Apple vs certain posters who excessively make repeated negative comments just for the sake of it, and just to get a kick out of it, without actually discussing the merits of Apple or non-Apple perspectives.

For example, the benchmark would be, would we just go to an Android site and reply constantly, irrelevantly, to all their news threads with things like, "Clearly Android will never catch up to Apple" or "Google is the real sleazebag here", "Mind you, I've got an Android phone but can't wait to ditch it for an iPhone, I'm sick of being locked into the Android ecosystem".

And yet you never see that kind of stuff on Android (or PC) discussion sites. I wonder how it is that Apple's customers are "fanatics" and "fan boys", yet the people going way out of their way to do platform contention are Android and PC users?

New meme: Android users are pompous, overbearing douchebags who are nevertheless deeply insecure about their choices, and feel driven to seek out confrontation to mask their devastating lack of self-esteem.

Quillz, if your'e worried about not being able to speak your mind hereabouts, I suggest this: go on an Android or PC discussion site, run your mouth like nvidia suggests, and get back to us how that goes over (with links, preferably).

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.

Just for the record, I said nothing one way or the other about Facebook.

And this is a topic concerning Apple and Facebook and you weren't referring to Facebook?
what, did you post this in the wrong section? seriously though it would have been better just to go with the argument, now you just look silly.

Help you connect with others, have you look at Ads, and of course, to sell your personal information. How do you think they make money? It's the same way Google makes it.

I dont think PING will be selling personal information.I think they monetize your information by feeding targeted ads and suggestions to you based on your personal information and past shopping history, who you follow, what you have previously purchased, etc. - Same way Google makes its money. There is a BIG difference between targeting advertising and selling personal information. Peoples personal information is already out there without having to go to Apple and buy it, and you can probably get more details from less high-profile companies

I would suggest that the article is so poorly worded on what actually happened, and what that Facebook connect log in actually was, that your basically just weaving this opinion out of thin air.

What information there is at this point basically points towards how sleazy Facebook has been in their dealings with other companies lately, and your takeaway is that "Apple is sleazy." ????

Wow no bias there is there?

I base my opinion on the facts recounted in the story: No deal, nothing on the table, and Apple integrates them anyways.

I agree that the story is badly written, short on facts, and is likely an exercise in dissembling. But it seems to support the contention that I made: No deal, nothing on the table, and Apple integrates them anyways.